Posted on 01/22/2009 12:00:43 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
Exactly! A simple task of the court issuing a subpoena for Obama’s original birth certificate.
Also, Obama lost his natural born status when his citizenship was changed to Indonesian when he was a minor child.
Yes it could- then subpoena her!
Seems like we have the same Obots posting the same things under different names. You never see them on any other pages. They always dismiss the court cases but it seems like they sure are concerned about them. My guess is they are concerned that one them may get through and it may be sooner than later.
Where again was Alito during that meeting. They are in denial.
The Supreme Court has ruled that someone born in the United States remains a citizen forever unless they voluntarily renounce their citizenship. Whatever Obama's parents did when he was a minor could not constitute his voluntary relinquishment.
If he used an Indonesian passport after the age of majority that would be a different matter.
That is what I thought.
... how about Obama was a British citizen at birth (and I’ve never heard what you are claiming).
Dual citizenship does not mean he wasn't a natural born citizen, if he was born in the U.S. And if you've never heard what I'm claiming, read the Supreme Court case-- I posted a link.
Obama’s mother was to young to pass along American citizenship. His father was a British citizen. Obama is not a natural born American citizen (until he proves it and I don’t believe that he can).
“Dual citizenship does not mean he wasn’t a natural born citizen”
I’d like to hear more about the reasoning behind this as well. Where does it say that a dual-citizen, or a non-citizen, or simply being born here like an anchor baby, is considered a natural born citizen, qualified for the office of the president? It’s contradictory to the obvious loyalty requirements. One could strongly argue that any ruling that even grants anchor babies citizenship at all is wholly un-Constitutional, but to then say this might also grant them natural born citizen status and be qualified to be the president of the entire country, is absurd on the face of it.
Irrelevant, if he was born in Hawaii, as the officials of the State of Hawaii have said he was.
Obama is not a natural born American citizen (until he proves it and I don’t believe that he can).
He has proven it to the satisfaction of the full membership of the House and Senate, who certified his election. Until and unless the courts get involved (and, so far, none has), that's all that matters.
I’m completely disagreeing with you.
Exactly!
To have both British and U.S. Citizenship, or
Russian and U.S. Citizenship, or
Chinese and U.S. Citizenship, etc.
AT birth....would NOT make that person a NBC no matter where that person was born!
If that were the case, the framers of our Constitution would not have had to put "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" in Article II section I.
There would be Zero need to do so, if they thought that having British citizenship at birth themselves...but later U.S. citizenship via the Declaration of Independance meant they still meet the NBC clause.
There is no Supreme Court case that has explicitly discussed this in terms of eligibility for President, but the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court's leading decision on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, says that there are only two classes of citizens-- naturalized and natural born. If someone was born here, he wasn't naturalized, and is therefore natural born.
Obama has made no secret of his dual citizenship from birth, but no one-- not Hillary in the primaries, not McCain in the general election, no court, and no member of the House and Senate when they met to certify the electoral votes-- has questioned his status as a NBC.
They needed that clause not because they were dual citizens at birth, but because they were only British citizens at birth-- the U.S. didn't exist as a legal entity until 1776.
God bless you! This place would be pretty boring if everyone agreed all the time.
Posters who get snotty about Orly make me want to retch. How I wish there were a couple hundred Orly Taitzes challenging the Usurper in the courts! She has her idiosyncracies, but so what? Who doesn’t?
In addition, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’ and ‘not subject to any foreign power’ would exclude granting anchor babies citizenship, let alone natural born citizenship.
Except they did not rule Wong Kim Ark as a natural born citizen, so that doesn’t work. Anything else?
I don’t think the actions, or lack thereof, of the current political leadership is indicative of the right or wrong of the issue... You may trust them to do the right thing, I do not.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they were:
1) Born in the colonies..not G.B. (most if not all anyway).
2) British citizens AT birth
3) U.S. Citizens.
they needed it because the were only citizens of the U.S. who also happened to have been British citizenship at birth. Obviously, the declaration in 1776 didn't give them Natural Born status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.